' ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.---Professor Zahir Ahmed Siddiqui (since dead) the predecessor of the appellants filed an application under the Rent Laws for ejectment of the respondents from the disputed premises which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 11-6-1976. This order was, however, set aside by the first appellate Court by order dated 10-5-1977, and second appeal against the said order was dismissed on 11-6-1977, Civil Petition for leave to appeal was filed in this Court which was dismissed through order dated 11-4-1983. It appears that the original owner/landlord died somewhere in 1989 and the appellants, who are his successors, submitted execution application on 19-2-1990. The respondents filed objection petition for the dismissal of the execution application for the reason that it was time-barred. The learned executing Court while accepting the objection petition dismissed the execution application as time barred by order dated 27-7-1991. In High Court the writ petition moved by the appellants to call in question the correctness of the executing Court's judgment, was dismissed through the impugned order.
2. Leave to appeal was granted in these terms:-- ' "Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the writ petition through affidavit as also in reply to the objection petition before the Rent Controller, it was pleaded by the deceased predecessor of the petitioners that he was suffering from paralysis and become bed-ridden and could not pursue the litigation, therefore, when the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by this Court, the respondent fraudulently concealed this fact from the deceased that the same had been dismissed and had been continuously depositing the rent in the Court as ordered by the interim order of this Court in order to further give impression to the deceased that the stay order was still opeiative in order to prevent the deceased from seeking execution of the ejectment order within period of limitation, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of section 18 of the Limitation Act which aspect of the case has not been considered by the High Court, as from the impugned judgment of the High Court, it appears that no notice was taken of the said affidavit and its contents, as such, the application of law was not correctly made to the present case and had the same been considered the execution petition would not have been dismissed as barred by time."
3. The same submissions as had been made at leave granting stage, were repeated before us. The respondents had been proceeded against ex-parte and, therefore, none appeared to represent them.
4. There is no denying the fact that this Court by order dated 30-6-1977, had stayed the execution of the ejectment order and it is borne out from this Court order dated 11-1-1983, that at the time of refusing leave to appeal and dismissing the petition the present appellants, as respondents, were not represented. It is also supported by record that the respondents had all along been depositing the rent to give an impression that the stay order is still operative and as such actively concealed this fact from the present appellants. In these circumstances the application for execution could not legally be termed as time-barred. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgments and direct the executing Court to execute the decree/order in accordance with law. No order as to costs.